Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 24, 2026.

Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Rhiannon C Macefield, Marc Jacobs, Ida J Korfage and 5 more

Trials · 2014 · Review

doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-49

Abstract

Background. Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example.

Methods. Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation.

Results. Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, ‘physical function’ in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains.

Conclusion. This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 24, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Background

Outcome selection and reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often problematic. Heterogeneity in outcomes measured across studies in the same disease or treatment may hamper effective evidence synthesis. A systematic review of oesophageal studies, for example, found 10 different measures for postoperative mortality which were often undefined. In addition, selective reporting of outcomes puts trials at risk of outcome reporting bias and can mean treatment effects are exaggerated. These issues may be further complicated for patient reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are typically assessed using questionnaires (patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)) and many validated questionnaires are available because PROMs have been developed by different groups and disciplines (for example, clinical versus psychological) or for differing purposes (for example, measurement of health in generic populations versus disease-specific patient groups). A single PROM can be made up of numerous scales and single items and generic and disease specific PROMs are often combined to assess a range of relevant health domains within an RCT. This means that different (and often ill-defined) outcomes may be reported and the multiplicity of items and scales may also allow selection of statistically significant rather than pre-determined a priori PRO endpoints to be reported, increasing the risk of outcome reporting bias. Problems are further accentuated for PROs because terminology of the scales and items across PROMs is not universally agreed meaning data synthesis across studies is difficult when different questionnaires are used, and while there is overlap in the issues that are measured there is also variation because PROMs have been developed by different methods and for different purposes. Potential solutions to these challenges are to develop and use core outcome sets.

Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed minimum set of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all trials of a particular treatment or condition. The routine measurement of COSs has the potential to facilitate data synthesis and reduce outcome reporting bias by standardising the outcomes that are measured across studies and this has been emphasised by the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative which supports the development and application of COSs for pragmatic (effectiveness) trials. Pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether an intervention is effective for routine clinical practice and outcomes, therefore, need to be relevant and important to patients as well as clinicians and other key decision-makers. In many cases these are the outcomes that are assessed with PROMs, particularly if the questionnaire has been developed with patient input but the availability of so many different PROMs, however, means there are problems with selecting which of the measured health domains are ‘core’. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore and report methods to identify PRO domains from the wealth of available PROMs and to use this approach to inform the development of a COS to use in pragmatic trials in a specific condition. Consensus on which outcomes to include in the final core set, and the methods to achieve this, are the focus of further research.

Methods

This study was undertaken within one disease site and treatment - radical treatment for oesophageal cancer, selected because the research team have clinical and PROM expertise in this area and have previously tried to summarise PRO evidence. There were three phases of work: (1) a systematic literature review to identify validated PROMs used in oesophageal cancer studies and the scope of these instruments; (2) a detailed content analysis to explore PROM diversity; and (3) categorisation of PROM content into health domains (Figure 1).

Identification of PROMs used in oesophageal cancer studies

A systematic review was performed to identify and present the scope of existing validated PROMs in order to provide knowledge of the current of state of PRO measurement in this field.

Search strategy

Electronic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases between January 2006 and May 2011 were performed. The search strategy included terms for patient-reported outcomes, oesophageal cancer, surgery and chemotherapy, radiotherapy or combined therapy (see Additional file 1). Searches were limited to studies published in English language. Relevant studies published prior to 2006 were identified from a previous systematic review. Abstracts of identified records were screened for inclusion and full text articles were assessed for eligibility by one of three reviewers (RW, MJ, RCM) with reasons for exclusion documented. No studies were excluded based on a risk of bias assessment or judgement of methodological quality because the purpose of the current study was to identify PROs rather than examine the quality of the data or treatment effect.

Selection criteria

Included were studies that used at least one validated PROM to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQL) after radical treatment of oesophageal cancer, including surgical, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy interventions. Valid PROMs were defined as those that had been tested for psychometric validity and reliability in appropriate patient populations with methodology verified from published papers. No restrictions on study design or sample size were applied. Studies of palliative treatment, comparisons of clinician- or hospital-related factors, and those limited to investigating satisfaction with care or health utilities were excluded.

Data extraction

Data were extracted using a pre-designed form, piloted before full data extraction with a sample of included studies. Study publication date, design and treatment intervention, the name of the PROM(s), the reported PRO scales and single items, and details of any additional non-validated questions were extracted. These were recorded by one reviewer (RM) and checked by additional members of the study team (MJ, MAGS). The validated PROMs were obtained, including other validated disease-specific PROMs known to authors. Verbatim names for the PRO scales and single items as termed by the PROM developers were extracted and all PROM items (scale components and any single items) were recorded. Data were stored in an electronic database.

Examination of PROM content

A detailed content analysis of the identified instruments was performed to explore the diversity of PROs in this field. Verbatim names for scales and single items were listed. Scales with identical names and others that were similar (defined as having a least one identical word) were documented, counted and compared for consistency and overlap of the component items.

Categorisation into health domains

To synthesise the existing content of instruments and provide a framework for future core set development, all PROM items (scale components and any single items) were examined and systematically categorised into conceptual health domains according to the issue they addressed. This was performed by expert methodologists (an oesophageal cancer surgeon and a psychologist) with experience of questionnaire development in health-related quality of life research and cancer (JMB and MAGS) based on their knowledge, familiarity and practiced skill of grouping questionnaire items in this field. Health domains were defined as generic aspects of quality of life affected by health or disease-specific issues and symptoms. Further domains were defined until saturation, that is, all individual PROM items had been mapped onto a domain. Issues addressed in non-validated questions were additionally mapped to domains to verify that the conceptual health domains encompassed all outcomes measured in the included studies. Mapping of items to domains was checked for completeness and consistency by two authors (IK and RCM) and a patient advocate working within oncology research to maximise validity and reliability of the method. Variances were resolved by discussion within the study team and with the senior author (JMB). Data were recorded electronically.

Identification of PROMs used in oesophageal cancer studies

A total of 1,351 records were screened for inclusion and 111 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 56 were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for eligibility, including seven studies that used PROMs without sufficient psychometric validation. Some 55 relevant articles reporting 56 studies were identified (Table 1). Almost all studies (n = 54, 96%) included data on PROs after surgery, either alone or with neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy. Nineteen validated PROMs were used (Table 1): nine for gastrointestinal diseases, five cancer-specific instruments and five generic instruments. One oesophageal specific PROM was adapted from a cancer instrument (adapted Rotterdam Symptom Checklist). Three were earlier versions of an updated PROM (EORTC QLQ-C36, QLQ-OES24 and MOS SF20).The most frequently used PROMs were the EORTC QLQ-C30 (n = 34, 61%), and the disease-specific modules EORTC QLQ-OES18, or earlier version QLQ-OES24 (n = 27, 48%). PROMs were not always used in their entirety, with evidence of selective outcome reporting of scales and single items in 33 (59%), although there was variation across studies in the outcomes that were selected (data not shown). Twenty-one (37%) studies added an additional 74 non-validated items. A further two validated disease specific PROMs; the EORTC QLQ-OG25 and EQOL, were sourced from authors’ knowledge, neither of which had been used in a published study since development and validation at the time of the conducted search (May 2011).

Examination of PROM content

There were 116 scales (composed from 574 individual items) and 32 single items in total, with 94 different verbatim scale/item names (Table 2). ‘Pain’ and ‘physical function’ were the most common verbatim name for a scale, used in six different PROMs, but other PROM scale names were also very similar (for example, physical wellbeing, physical problems, physical distress, physical activity, role physical) (Table 3). Some scales with identical names, however, had different component items. For example, ‘physical function’ in one PROM consisted of seven items relating to tiredness/fatigue, feeling unwell, waking up at night, changes in appearance, physical strength, endurance and feeling unfit, compared to ‘physical function’ in another PROM consisting of five items that referred to strenuous activity, ability to walk certain distances, time spent in bed or a chair, and need for help with self-care. Similar heterogeneity was found for PROs assessed with single items, for example ‘cough’ in one PROM assessed waking at night because of coughing, whereas in another it was an assessment of coughing following eating. While the two items assessed slightly different aspects of coughing they had the same name (‘cough’) and thus reporting would only refer to cough and not the actual issue being assessed within the item.

Categorisation into health domains

All PROM individual items (n = 606) were categorised into 32 conceptual generic or symptom specific domains by the study authors (Table 4). Illustrative examples of this categorisation process are provided for some of the generic health domains (Table 5). The most common assessed health domain (concept), that is, the health domain that most PROM items mapped to, was emotional function, assessed in 18 of the 21 PROMs. Other commonly assessed health domains were ‘pain/pain-related swallowing’ (assessed in 14 different PROMs), ‘physical activity/activities of daily life’ (in 13 PROMs) and ‘appetite/eating/taste’ (in 12 PROMs). Uncommon domains were ‘spiritual issues’ (assessed in one PROM) and ‘dizziness/dumping’ (assessed in two PROMs). Non-validated questions predominantly focused on eating and therefore were mapped onto the ‘appetite/eating/taste’ domain. A patient advocate checked the categorisation of items into health domains and there were no difference of opinion.

Discussion

This study comprehensively analysed PROs from studies in radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. Some 116 scales and 32 single items were identified from 21 validated PROMs. As many as 94 different verbatim names were used to describe PRO scales and single items and although many names were similar, content examination revealed component questions did not always address comparable issues. In-depth examination and categorisation of PROM contents concluded that together they addressed 32 different health domains demonstrating the vast overlap between PROMs.

Our findings show how evidence synthesis of oesophageal cancer PROs may be hampered because of the range of PROMs used in trials and the multiple scales and single items within them, often with inconsistent and non-transparent terminology. Core outcome sets aim to reduce this problem by identifying and prioritising the important health domains to be measured in all studies. The development of core outcome sets in other clinical areas has been undertaken using a range of methods, in particular the approach to including PROs. In rheumatoid arthritis, for example, the initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set was developed by a committee of experts (16 professionals in rheumatoid arthritis trials, health services research and biostatistics) who reviewed the literature on the validity of trial outcomes (for example, sensitivity to change or how well it predicted/correlated with a definite clinical change) and used a nominal group process to recommend and reach consensus on a list of core outcomes. The list was presented and finalised at a specialist international conference (OMERACT: Outcome Measures for Rheumatology in Clinical Trials) and contained both clinical and PROs, although patients were not involved in the consensus process. Outcomes were specific (for example, number of swollen joints) or more general domains (for example, functional status), with recommendations on how to measure the outcomes decided later. Subsequent OMERACT conference discussions and workshops deliberately involved patients and led to the addition of fatigue in the ACR core set, and continued work using interviews with patients, identified further important PROs. This led to the development of a ‘patient core set’ of disease-specific and global outcome domains solely derived from patient opinion to complement the professional ACR core set. Our current study methodology ensures that the patient perspective and relevant PROs inform the development of a core set of outcome domains from an early stage, because it examines the content of validated PROMs which are developed with significant patient involvement. The identified PRO domains will be prioritised using a Delphi method to reach consensus on the important to include in the core outcome set, alongside clinical outcomes, and is the focus of future work. Patients, surgeons and clinical nurse specialists will be surveyed to ensure the opinions of all key stakeholders are sought, a recommended approach by the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative.

This study included a detailed systematic search to identify PROs measured in oesophageal cancer studies and used rigourous methodology to identify health domains, however, it does have weaknesses. The categorisation of question items into health domains was performed by two experts and independently checked by other members of the research team, including a patient advocate, but it is possible that others may have categorised items differently. Inter-rater reliability statistics could have been recorded to describe agreement between the experts when categorising items. Future work therefore is needed to standardised and validate this method. In addition, presentation of the methodology to a greater number of patients or patient representatives could strengthen the robustness and reliability of the categorisation process.

Conclusion

In summary, this study demonstrates there is diversity in the PROMs selected to evaluate radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. Within and between PROMs there is a lack of clarity between named scales and items and the underlying health domains being assessed meaning data synthesis is limited. A methodology for identifying important PRO health domains is proposed which can be used to inform the development of a core set of health domains. Following this it will be necessary to determine accurate and efficient ways to measure these core domains, drawing on items banks developed by initiatives such as PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) and COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments).

Abbreviations

COS: Core outcome set; HRQL: Health-related quality of life; PRO: Patient-reported outcome; PROM: Patient-reported outcome measure; RCT: Randomised controlled trial.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

RM conducted and coordinated the review and drafted the manuscript. MJ was involved in the systematic databases searches, data extraction and contributed to the draft manuscript. IK and JN contributed to the systematic search for studies. RW helped to screen abstracts for the review. ST contributed to the design of the study. MS checked the data extraction, grouped data into PRO domains and contributed to the draft manuscript. JB conceived the idea for the review, was involved in the design of the study and data extraction, grouped data into PRO domains, contributed to the draft manuscript and supervised the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References 92

  1. 1.

    Blencowe NS Strong S McNair AGK Brookes ST Crosby T Griffin SM Blazeby JM Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic reviewAnn Surg2012 255658666

    Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e3182480a6a

  2. 2.
    Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias · 2008
    No notice
  3. 3.
    Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider · 2012
    No notice
  4. 4.

    COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiativehttp://www.comet-initiative.org/

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Sanderson T Morris M Calnan M Richards P Hewlett S What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core setArthrit Care Res2010 62640646

    Not in our library10.1002/acr.20034

  6. 6.

    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug AdministrationGuidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims2009 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Jacobs M Macefield RC Blazeby JMKI Van Berge Henegouwen MI De Haes HC Smets EM Sprangers MA Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancerQual Life Res2012 2217871803

    Not in our library10.1007/s11136-012-0290-8

  8. 8.

    Parameswaran R McNair A Avery KNL Berrisford RG Wajed SA Sprangers MAG Blazeby JM The role of health-related quality of life outcomes in clinical decision making in surgery for esophageal cancer: a systematic reviewAnn Surg Oncol2008 1523722379

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-008-0042-8

  9. 9.

    Jacobs M Macefield RC Elbers RG Sitnikova K Korfage IJ Smets EM Henselmans I Van Berge Henegouwen MI De Haes JC Blazeby JM Sprangers MA Meta-analysis shows clinically relevant and long-lasting deterioration in health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer surgeryQual Life Res2013 [Epub ahead of print]

    Not in our library10.1007/s11136-013-0576-5

  10. 10.

    Guyatt GH Feeny DH Patrick DL Measuring health-related quality of lifeAnn Intern Med1993 118622629

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009

  11. 11.

    Ariga H Nemoto K Miyazaki S Yoshioka T Ogawa Y Sakayauchi T Jingu K Miyata G Onodera K Ichikawa H Kamei T Kato S Ishioka C Satomi S Yamada S Prospective comparison of surgery alone and chemoradiotherapy with selective surgery in resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagusInt J Radiat Oncol2009 75348356

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.02.086

  12. 12.

    Avery KNL Metcalfe C Barham CP Alderson D Falk SJ Blazeby JM Quality of life during potentially curative treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancerBritish J Surg2007 9413691376

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.5888

  13. 13.

    Barbour AP Lagergren P Hughes R Alderson D Barham CP Blazeby JM Health-related quality of life among patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction treated by gastrectomy or oesophagectomyBrit J Surg2008 958084

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.5912

  14. 14.

    Blazeby JM Farndon JR Donovan J Alderson D A prospective longitudinal study examining the quality of life of patients with esophageal carcinomaCancer2000 8817811787

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000415)88:8<1781::aid-cncr4>3.0.co;2-g

  15. 15.

    Blazeby JM Sanford E Falk SJ Alderson D Donovan JL Health-related quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for localized esophageal carcinomaCancer2005 10317911799

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.20980

  16. 16.

    Blazeby JM Williams MH Brookes ST Alderson D Farndon JR Quality-of-lifemeasurement in patients with esophageal cancerGut1995 37505508

    Not in our library10.1136/gut.37.4.505

  17. 17.

    Brooks JA Kesler KA Johnson CS Ciaccia D Brown JW Prospective analysis of quality of life after surgical resection for esophageal cancer: Preliminary resultsJ Surg Oncol2002 81185194

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.10175

  18. 18.

    Cense HA Visser MRM Van Sandick JW de Boer AGEM Lamme B Obertop H Van Lanschot JJB Quality of life after colon interposition by necessity for esophageal cancer replacementJ Surg Oncol2004 883238

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.20132

  19. 19.

    Chang LC Oelschlager BK Quiroga E Parra JD Mulligan M Wood DE Pellegrini CA Long-term outcome of esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia or cancer found during surveillance for Barrett's esophagusJ Gastrointest Surg2006 10341346

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gassur.2005.12.007

  20. 20.

    de Boer AGEM Genovesi PIO Sprangers MAG van Sandick JW Obertop H van Lanschot JJB Quality of life in long-term survivors after curative transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinomaBrit J Surg2000 8717161721

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01600.x

  21. 21.

    de Boer AGEM van Lanschot JJB van Sandick JW Hulscher JBF Stalmeier PFM de Haes JCJM Tilanus HW Obertop H Sprangers MAG Quality of life after transhiatal compared with extended transthoracic resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagusJ Clin Oncol2004 2242024208

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.11.102

  22. 22.

    Djarv T Lagergren J Blazeby JM Lagergren P Long-term health-related quality of life following surgery for oesophageal cancerBrit J Surg2008 9511211126

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.6293

  23. 23.

    Egberts JH Schniewind B Bestmann B Schafmayer C Egberts F Faendrich F Kuechler T Tepel J Impact of the site of anastomosis after oncologic esophagectomy on quality of life - A prospective, longitudinal outcome studyAnn Surg Oncol2008 15566575

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-007-9615-1

  24. 24.

    Gillham CM Aherne N Rowley S Moore J Hollywood D O'Byrne K Reynolds JV Quality of life and survival in patients treated with radical chemoradiation alone for oesophageal cancerClin Oncol-Uk2008 20227233

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clon.2007.12.002

  25. 25.

    Gockel I Gonner U Domeyer M Lang H Junginger T Long-term survivors of esophageal cancer: disease-specific quality of life, general health and complicationsJ Surg Oncol2010 102516522

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.21434

  26. 26.

    Gradauskas P Rubikas R Saferis V Changes in quality of life after esophageal resections for carcinomaMedicina2006 42187194

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Hallas CN Patel N Oo A Jackson M Murphy P Drakeley MJ Soorae A Page RD Five-year survival following oesophageal cancer resection: psychosocial functioning and quality of lifePsychol Health Med2001 68594

    Not in our library10.1080/13548500124671

  28. 28.

    Headrick JR Nichols FC Miller DL Allen MS Trastek VF Deschamps C Schleck CD Thompson AM Pairolero PC High-grade esophageal dysplasia: long-term survival and quality of life after esophagectomyAnn Thorac Surg2002 7316971702

    Not in our library10.1016/s0003-4975(02)03496-3

  29. 29.

    Higuchi A Minamide J Ota Y Takada K Aoyama N Evaluation of the quality of life after surgical treatment for thoracic esophageal cancerEsophagus2006 35359

    Not in our library10.1007/s10388-006-0078-4

  30. 30.

    Hurmuzlu M Aarstad HJ Aarstad AKH Hjermstad MJ Viste A Health-related quality of life in long-term survivors after high-dose chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in esophageal cancerDis Esophagus2011 243947

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01104.x

  31. 31.

    Lagergren P Avery KNL Hughes R Barham CP Alderson D Falk SJ Blazeby JM Health-related quality of life among patients cured by surgery for esophageal cancerCancer-Am Cancer Soc2007 110686693

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.22833

  32. 32.

    Leibman S Smithers BM Gotley DC Martin I Thomas J Minimally invasive esophagectomySurg Endosc2006 20428433

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-005-0388-y

  33. 33.

    Luketich JD Alvelo-Rivera M Buenaventura PO Christie NA McCaughan JS Litle VR Schauer PR Close JM Fernando HC Minimally invasive esophagectomy - outcomes in 222 patientsAnn Surg2003 238486494

    Not in our library10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68

  34. 34.

    Martin L Lagergren J Lindblad M Rouvelas I Lagergren P Malnutrition after oesophageal cancer surgery in SwedenBrit J Surg2007 9414961500

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.5881

  35. 35.

    McLarty AJ Deschamps C Trastek VF Allen MS Pairolero PC Harmsen WS Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus: long-term function and quality of lifeAnn Thorac Surg1997 6315681572

    Not in our library10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00125-2

  36. 36.

    Moraca RJ Low DE Outcomes and health-related quality of life after esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal cancerArch Surg-Chicago2006 141545549

    Not in our library10.1001/archsurg.141.6.545

  37. 37.

    Nakamura M Kido Y Hosoya Y Yano M Nagai H Monden M Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction after 2-field versus 3-field lymph node dissection in patients with esophageal cancerSurg Today2007 37379382

    Not in our library10.1007/s00595-006-3413-4

  38. 38.

    Ohanlon DM Harkin M Karat D Sergeant T Hayes N Griffin SM Quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing treatment for esophageal-carcinomaBrit J Surg1995 8216821685

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.1800821232

  39. 39.

    Olsen MF Larsson M Hammerlid E Lundell L Physical function and quality of life after thoracoabdominal oesophageal resection - results of a longitudinal follow-up studyDigest Surg2005 226368

    Not in our library10.1159/000085348

  40. 40.

    Parameswaran R Blazeby JM Hughes R Mitchell K Berrisford RG Wajed SA Health-related quality of life after minimally invasive oesophagectomyBrit J Surg2010 97525531

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.6908

  41. 41.

    Reynolds JV McLaughlin R Moore J Rowley S Ravi N Byrne PJ Prospective evaluation of quality of life in patients with localized oesophageal cancer treated by multimodality therapy or surgery aloneBrit J Surg2006 9310841090

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.5373

  42. 42.

    Rosmolen WD Boer KR de Leeuw RJR Gamel CJ Henegouwen MIV Bergman JJGHM Sprangers MAG Quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic and surgical treatment for early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagusEndoscopy2010 42525531

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0029-1244222

  43. 43.

    Rutegard M Lagergren J Ronvelas I Lindblad M Blazeby JM Lagergren P Population-based study of surgical factors in relation to health-related quality of life after oesophageal cancer resectionBrit J Surg2008 95592601

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.6021

  44. 44.

    Safieddine N Xu W Quadri SM Knox JJ Hornby J Sulman J Wong R Guindi M Keshavjee S Darling G Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical interventionJ Thorac Cardiov Sur2009 1373642

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.09.049

  45. 45.

    Schembre D Arai A Levy S Farrell-Ross M Low D Quality of life after esophagectomy and endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus with dysplasiaDis Esophagus2010 23458464

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2050.2009.01042.x

  46. 46.

    Schmidt CE Bestmann B Kuchler T Schmid A Kremer B Quality of life associated with surgery for esophageal cancer: differences between collar and intrathoracic anastomosesWorld J Surg2004 28355360

    Not in our library10.1007/s00268-003-7219-x

  47. 47.

    Schneider L Hartwig W Aulmann S Lenzen C Strobel O Fritz S Hackert T Keller M Buehler MW Werner J Quality of life after emergency vs. elective esophagectomy with cervical reconstructionScand J Surg2010 9938

    Not in our library10.1177/145749691009900102

  48. 48.

    Servagi-Vernat S Bosset M Crehange G Buffet-Miny J Puyraveau M Maingon P Mercier M Bosset JF Feasibility of chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer in elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years. A prospective, single-arm Phase II studyDrug Aging2009 26255262

    Not in our library10.2165/00002512-200926030-00006

  49. 49.

    Spector NM Hicks FD Pickleman J Quality of life and symptoms after surgery for gastroesophageal cancerGastroenterol Nurs2002 25120125

    Not in our library10.1097/00001610-200205000-00007

  50. 50.

    Staal EFWC van Sandick JW van Tinteren H Cats A Aaronson NK Health-related quality of life in long-term esophageal cancer survivors after potentially curative treatmentJ Thorac Cardiov Sur2010 140777783

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.05.018

  51. 51.

    Stein HJ Feith M Mueller J Werner M Siewert JR Limited resection for early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagusAnn Surg2000 232733740

    Not in our library10.1097/00000658-200012000-00002

  52. 52.

    Sweed MR Schiech L Barsevick A Babb JS Goldberg M Quality of life after esophagectomy for cancerOncol Nurs Forum2002 2911271131

    Not in our library10.1188/02.onf.1127-1131

  53. 53.

    Tan QY Wang RW Jiang YG Fan SZ Hsin MKY Gong TQ Zhou JH Zhao YP Lung volume reduction surgery allows esophageal tumor resection in selected esophageal carcinoma with severe emphysemaAnn Thorac Surg2006 8218491856

    Not in our library10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.05.081

  54. 54.

    Teoh AYB Chiu PWY Wong TCL Liu SYW Wong SKH Ng EKW Functional performance and quality of life in patients with squamous esophageal carcinoma receiving surgery or chemoradiation. Results from a randomized trialAnn Surg2011 25315

    Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e3181fcd991

  55. 55.

    Van Meerten E Van Der Gaast A Looman CWN Tilanus HWG Muller K Essink-Bot ML Quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment and after surgery for resectable esophageal carcinomaInt J Radiat Oncol2008 71160166

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.09.038

  56. 56.

    Vanknippenberg FCE Out JJ Tilanus HW Mud HJ Hop WCJ Verhage F Quality of life in patients with resected esophageal cancerSoc Sci Med1992 35139145

    Not in our library10.1016/0277-9536(92)90161-i

  57. 57.

    Verschuur EML Steyerberg EW Kuipers EJ Essink-Bot ML Tran KTC Van der Gaast A Tilanus HW Siersema PD Experiences and expectations of patients after oesophageal cancer surgery: an explorative studyEur J Cancer Care2006 15324332

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00659.x

  58. 58.

    Viklund P Lindblad M Lagergren J Influence of surgery-related factors on quality of life after esophageal or cardia cancer resectionWorld J Surg2005 29841848

    Not in our library10.1007/s00268-005-7887-9

  59. 59.

    Viklund P Wengstrom Y Rouvelas I Lindblad M Lagergren J Quality of life and persisting symptoms after oesophageal cancer surgeryEur J Cancer2006 4214071414

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.005

  60. 60.

    Wang H Feng MX Tan LJ Wang Q Comparison of the short-term quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer after subtotal esophagectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic or open surgeryDis Esophagus2010 23408414

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2050.2009.01025.x

  61. 61.

    Wang H Tan LJ Feng MX Zhang Y Wang Q Comparison of the short-term health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer with different routes of gastric tube reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomyQual Life Res2011 20179189

    Not in our library10.1007/s11136-010-9742-1

  62. 62.

    Yamashita H Okuma K Seto Y Mori K Kobayashi S Wakui R Ohtomo K Nakagawa K A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life measures between definitive chemoradiation alone and radical surgery for clinical stage II-III esophageal carcinomaJ Surg Oncol2009 100435441

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.21361

  63. 63.

    Zhang C Wu QC Hou PY Zhang M Li QA Jiang YJ Chen D Impact of the method of reconstruction after oncologic oesophagectomy on quality of life - a prospective, randomised studyEur J Cardio-Thorac2011 39109114

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.04.032

  64. 64.

    Zieren HU Jacobi CA Zieren J Muller JM Quality of life following resection of oesophageal carcinomaBrit J Surg1996 8317721775

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.1800831235

  65. 65.

    Zieren HU Muller JM Jacobi CA Pichlmaier J Muller RP Staar S Adjuvant postoperative radiation-therapy after curative resection of squamous-cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus - a prospective randomized studyWorld J Surg1995 19444449

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00299187

  66. 66.

    Blazeby JM Conroy T Hammerlid E Fayers P Sezer O Koller M Arraras J Bottomley A Vickery CW Etienne PL Alderson D Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancerEur J Cancer2003 3913841394

    Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00270-3

  67. 67.

    Darling G Eton DT Sulman J Casson AG Cella D Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscaleCancer2006 107854863

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.22055

  68. 68.

    Velanovich V The development of the GERD-HRQL symptom severity instrumentDis Esophagus2007 20130134

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00658.x

  69. 69.

    Hicks FD Spector NM The life after gastric surgery index: conceptual basis and initial psychometric assessmentGastroenterol Nurs2004 275054

    Not in our library10.1097/00001610-200403000-00003

  70. 70.

    Nakamura M Kido Y Egawa T Development of a 32-item scale to assess postoperative dysfunction after upper gastrointestinal cancer ResectionJ Clin Nurs2008 1714401449

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02179.x

  71. 71.

    Blazeby JM Alderson D Winstone K Steyn R Hammerlid E Arraras J Farndon JR Development of an EORTC questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessment for patients with oesophageal cancerEur J Cancer1996 32A19121917

    Not in our library10.1016/0959-8049(96)00199-2

  72. 72.

    Eypasch E Williams JI Wooddauphinee S Ure BM Schmulling C Neugebauer E Troidl H Gastrointestinal quality of life index - development, validation and application of a new instrumentBr J Surg1995 82216222

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.1800820229

  73. 73.
    Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist · 1990
    No notice
  74. 74.

    Aaronson NK Ahmedzai S Bergman B Bullinger M Cull A Duez NJ Filiberti A Flechtner H Fleishman SB Dehaes JCJM Kaasa S Klee M Osoba D Razavi D Rofe PB Schraub S Sneeuw K Sullivan M Takeda F The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 - a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncologyJ Natl Cancer Inst1993 85365376

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/85.5.365

  75. 75.

    Osse BHP Vernooij M Schade E Grol R Towards a new clinical tool for needs assessment in the palliative care of cancer patients: The PNPC instrumentJ Pain Symptom Manage2004 28329341

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.01.010

  76. 76.

    Northouse LL Mastectomy patients and the fear of cancer recurrenceCancer Nurs1981 4213220

    Not in our library

  77. 77.

    Zigmond AS Snaith RP The hospital anxiety and depression scaleActa Psychiatr Scand1983 67361370

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

  78. 78.

    Derogatis LR The psychosocial adjustment to illness scales (PAIS)J Psychosom Res1986 307791

    Not in our library10.1016/0022-3999(86)90069-3

  79. 79.

    Stewart AL Hays RD Ware JE The MOS Short-form general health survery - reliability and validity in a patient populationMed Care1988 26724732

    Not in our library10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007

  80. 80.

    Shacham S A shortened version of the Profile of Mood StatesJ Pers Assess1983 47305306

    Not in our library10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14

  81. 81.

    Ware JE Sherbourne CD The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36).1. Conceptual-framework and item selectionMed Care1992 30473483

    Not in our library10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

  82. 82.

    Aaronson N Ahmedzai S Bullinger M Osoba DThe EORTC core quality of life questinnaire:interim results of an international field studyEffect of cancer on quality of life1991 Boca Raton FL: CRC Press Ltd

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    de Boer A Genovesi PIO Sprangers MAG van Sandick JW Obertop H van Lanschot JJB Quality of life in long-term survivors after curative transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinomaBritish J Surg2000 8717161721

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01600.x

  84. 84.

    Lagergren P Fayers P Conroy T Stein HJ Sezer O Hardwick R Hammerlid E Bottomley A Van Cutsem E Blazeby JM European Organisation Res TClinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomachEur J Cancer2007 4320662073

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.005

  85. 85.

    Clifton JC Finley RJ Gelfand G Graham AJ Inculet R Malthaner R Tan L Lim J Singer J Lovato C Development and validation of a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire (EQOL) for potentially curable patients with carcinoma of the esophagusDis Esophagus2007 20191201

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00669.x

  86. 86.

    Felson DT Anderson JJ Boers M Bombardier C Chernoff M Fried B Furst D Goldsmith C Kieszak S Lightfoot R Paulus H Tugwell P Weinblatt M Widmark R Williams J Wolfe F The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trialsArthritis Rheum1993 36729740

    Not in our library10.1002/art.1780360601

  87. 87.

    Kirwan JR Hewlett SE Heiberg T Hughes RA Carr M Hehir M Kvien TK Minnock P Newman SP Quest EM Taal E Wale J Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis–progress at OMERACT 7J Rheumatol2005 3222502256

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Sanderson T Morris M Calnan M Richards P Hewlett S Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomesArthrit Care Res2010 62647656

    Not in our library10.1002/acr.20151

  89. 89.
    Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies · 2011
    No notice
  90. 90.

    Kirwan JR Minnock P Adebajo A Bresnhan B Choy E de Wit M Hazes M Richards P Saag K Suarez-Almazor M Wells G Hewlett S Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritisJ Rheumatol2007 3411741177

    Not in our library

  91. 91.

    Cella D Yount S Rothrock N Gershon R Cook K Reeve B Ader D Fries JF Bruce B Rose M; PROMIS Cooperative GroupThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two yearsMed Care2007 45S3S11

    Not in our library10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55

  92. 92.

    Terwee CB Mokkink LB Knol DL Ostelo RWJG Bouter LM de Vet HCW Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklistQual Life Res2012 21651657

    Not in our library10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.